Clunker II is coming for you ...

Discuss automotive and auto-industry-related items here. Non-Auto topics are not permitted.

Moderators: Dan Szwarc, Continental69

Post Reply
User avatar
Wixomhead
Lincoln Maniac
Posts: 487
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Pembroke, MA USA
Contact:

Clunker II is coming for you ...

Post by Wixomhead »

Fuel economy for cars has improved 25% in the past decade to an average of nearly 30 mpg for the segment from 24 mpg in 2007. Truck fuel economy rose by 17% to an average of 19 mpg from just under 16 mpg.
https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-insig ... from-here/

The fuel economy of the car bought, we suspect, will be 50% better than the fuel economy of the car scrapped. By getting rid of those old clunkers, you’re getting rid of the least efficient cars on the road, too. And then there’s a safety element to it—some level of minimum driving assistance technology—so the car you’re scrapping versus the car you’re buying has a lifesaving element to it
https://apple.news/ALGC9m8A-TnWWzdwq_9oiSw
Attachments
5F997101-DB43-4D1E-AE5C-335C4BFB6F59.jpeg
Wixomhead
User avatar
LithiumCobalt
Lincoln-ally Insane
Posts: 3843
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 4:16 pm
Location: Knoxville, TN
Contact:

Re: Clunker II is coming for you ...

Post by LithiumCobalt »

The whole cash for clunkers program implemented during the Obama regime was a colossal waste of money. It also destroyed many good used cars.

I sort of doubt the article’s suggestion that automakers want to stick with more stringent fuel economy regs. Why would they? That just costs them more money. Now, would they like it consistent? Probably.

In my personal opinion, the CAFE regs have turned our vehicle market into the 1980s in some fashions. About all you can get is a compact piece of crap with a 4-cylinder in it. No thanks.
Nick
Image
Current: 1971 Mark III, 2012 MKZ AWD, 2016 F-150 Platinum
WANTED: 1969 Continental sedan, 77 Continental Town Car w/opera window delete, 76 Fleetwood Brougham
User avatar
action
LCOC Regional Director
Posts: 5221
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Phoenix, Arizona 85008
Contact:

Re: Clunker II is coming for you ...

Post by action »

CAFE!!!! Or a fight about nothing done on a government level where by the consumer again pays the the whole ticket!

After the first gas crunch of the 1970s the Federal government enacted a law to reduce this country's dependence on foreign oil. Worthy goal if the problem is that this country consumes more petroleum than it produces. But like all government (IMO) the laws they enact become the greatest job creep ever. (I mean even more than my slab side!)

So we have CAFE or Corporate Average Fuel Economy that was put into place and has a starting point in the late 1970s to present with the above goal and using the tool of a requirement of increasing fuel economy in cars and light trucks.

The problem with the tool that the Feds used is they introduced an undesired side effect. And that is. in general, the greater the fuel economy the more the US consumer drove!!! So while the car got better fuel economy, we actually used more fuel because we drove more and farther. So the law did the opposite in the first couple or 3 decades (except the economic down turn of the early 1980s) after it was put in place. WE consumed MORE petroleum not less.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10


Finally as the petroleum consumption peaked in 2004/2005. And usage has actually gone down. But a strange thing happened. This country has found several other sources of petroleum with in the borders and we no long have to import any petroleum. In fact we export petroleum so the original problem has been FIXED!!!! I would suggest that fix was technology. And the technology is taking us to places where some personal transportation does not use petroleum in the operation. (It does in the manufacturing and in support of those kinds of vehicles)

But the original problem no longer exists!!!
So why do we have a federal law to fix a problem we do not not have?
Why are individual states increasing the standards for that law?
Why did the federal government increase the standard in 2011 to increase the 27.5 MPG standard to 54.5 by 2025????

Does not everyone know that the person paying for that buys a car? New used or otherwise. This country is not going to run on trains, planes, buses, and bicycles without some other radical change.
Like car companies building bicycles and using that MPG to count. https://web.archive.org/web/20180617015 ... milestones

>>>>Action
Attachments
A similar chart from NHTSA
A similar chart from NHTSA
Phoenix - Yeah, it's hot, however it's a dry heat
2006 Lincoln Navigator Limited 5.4l 3V
1996 Lincoln Mark VIII 2DR Coupe Diamond Anniversary 4.6l DOHC, 4R70W, 3.07
1970 Continental Mark III Triple Black 460 4v, C6, 2.80 (Used for Woodward Dream Cruise or just generally stored in Michigan)
1966 Lincoln Continental 4DR Convertible 462 4v, C6, 3.00
1966 Mercury Park Lane 4DR Breezeway 410 4v, C6, 2.80
User avatar
action
LCOC Regional Director
Posts: 5221
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Phoenix, Arizona 85008
Contact:

Re: Clunker II is coming for you ...

Post by action »

As far as incentivising consumers to buy car by giving cash to trade in old car. IMO there are multiple problems with that - But the main one is it does not work.

Unlike 2008 to 2010 period there was no demand for the product because of employment. There is demand today the government has just shut off supply
Unlike 2008 to 2010 period (and beyond) it was a sustained thing over many years. So far this event will be measured in months
Once manufacturers start building vehicles, they will not need greater demand from the consumer. They will need greater capacity to produce to meet the pent up demand.
If the manufactures need cash, a low to no interest loan to manufacturing makes far more sense than driving more consumers to the buying table.

https://qz.com/1042742/why-did-cash-for ... backfired/

If we want to help the vehicle manufacturers there are other ways than mess with the market place.

Action
Last edited by action on Sun Apr 19, 2020 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Phoenix - Yeah, it's hot, however it's a dry heat
2006 Lincoln Navigator Limited 5.4l 3V
1996 Lincoln Mark VIII 2DR Coupe Diamond Anniversary 4.6l DOHC, 4R70W, 3.07
1970 Continental Mark III Triple Black 460 4v, C6, 2.80 (Used for Woodward Dream Cruise or just generally stored in Michigan)
1966 Lincoln Continental 4DR Convertible 462 4v, C6, 3.00
1966 Mercury Park Lane 4DR Breezeway 410 4v, C6, 2.80
User avatar
LithiumCobalt
Lincoln-ally Insane
Posts: 3843
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 4:16 pm
Location: Knoxville, TN
Contact:

Re: Clunker II is coming for you ...

Post by LithiumCobalt »

I generally believe the less government, the better. Do we need it for some things? Absolutely. As far as job creep goes, you can say that again! Just about everything they touch turns into a power grab while taking freedoms always from people. If people want more fuel efficient vehicles, they will buy them.

Now, I will go a little more political and potentially get the thread sent to the war room...the reason you see more democrats than republicans pushing the “green” agenda all the time is because of all of their friends own or have vested interests in alternative energy companies. Where did all of those hippy communists from the 60’s go? They formed the Green Party. Solyndra anyone?

I am for all of the above energy solutions, but I don’t want the government subsidizing it with my tax dollars, regardless of which industry it is. Let the market pick winners and losers. Government can and does fuck up a cup of coffee.
Nick
Image
Current: 1971 Mark III, 2012 MKZ AWD, 2016 F-150 Platinum
WANTED: 1969 Continental sedan, 77 Continental Town Car w/opera window delete, 76 Fleetwood Brougham
User avatar
JimA
Dedicated Enthusiast
Posts: 594
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:54 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC, USA
Contact:

Re: Clunker II is coming for you ...

Post by JimA »

LithiumCobalt wrote:I generally believe the less government, the better. Do we need it for some things? Absolutely. As far as job creep goes, you can say that again! Just about everything they touch turns into a power grab while taking freedoms always from people. If people want more fuel efficient vehicles, they will buy them.

Now, I will go a little more political and potentially get the thread sent to the war room...the reason you see more democrats than republicans pushing the “green” agenda all the time is because of all of their friends own or have vested interests in alternative energy companies. Where did all of those hippy communists from the 60’s go? They formed the Green Party. Solyndra anyone?

I am for all of the above energy solutions, but I don’t want the government subsidizing it with my tax dollars, regardless of which industry it is. Let the market pick winners and losers. Government can and does fuck up a cup of coffee.
Couldn't agree more. :clap:
1978 Continental Coupe
521 Stroker -- SOLD :-(
User avatar
CaptainDave
Dedicated Enthusiast
Posts: 556
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:32 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: Clunker II is coming for you ...

Post by CaptainDave »

"The less government the better" is kind of awkward during a worldwide pandemic, isn't it? There's no question that overreach is objectionable but to me the enemy isn't government per se, it's poor governing. I've become friends with two of my state legislators in recent years (I got a bill introduced to help classic cars) and have seen how hard they work and the level of detail they need to go into. Strategies like "starve the beast" may be emotionally satisfying but they can be counterproductive by making the pendulum swing the other way. Better to elect competent leaders on both sides of the aisle and push them to work together, IMHO.
'66 convertible "The Blue Lagoon"
User avatar
LithiumCobalt
Lincoln-ally Insane
Posts: 3843
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 4:16 pm
Location: Knoxville, TN
Contact:

Re: Clunker II is coming for you ...

Post by LithiumCobalt »

Dave, I guess with what I have witnessed, I have little to no faith in government, regardless of party. I have no doubt there are good legislators, but just seems like there is an ever-expanding government and gradual erosion of personal freedoms. Sigh, I have veered too far off topic. Back to fuel economy standards...I’m glad our classics are exempt! :shock:
Nick
Image
Current: 1971 Mark III, 2012 MKZ AWD, 2016 F-150 Platinum
WANTED: 1969 Continental sedan, 77 Continental Town Car w/opera window delete, 76 Fleetwood Brougham
User avatar
CaptainDave
Dedicated Enthusiast
Posts: 556
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:32 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: Clunker II is coming for you ...

Post by CaptainDave »

I'm with you on the ever-expanding government (regardless of party in power) and erosion of personal freedoms. And I think the cash for clunkers bills are, well, clunky. I'm glad our classics are exempt, too, but I think we should watch our backs. You and I know that the overall impact of classics on air quality and carbon emissions is tiny because we drive them such a limited amount. Plus, that's offset by their historical value and the joy they bring to people. But others see only our pollution on a per-mile basis, which of course is out-sized compared to modern cars. Perception IS reality these days and I hope that collectors will consider that going forward.
'66 convertible "The Blue Lagoon"
Post Reply

Return to “Misc. Automotive Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests